When discussing with my students the pros and cons of different political enterprises, I would often bring up the observation that authoritarian technocratic systems can indeed benefit from focus. (see: China’s rapid infrastructure progress, state backed technology capture, etc.)
I then immediately point out downside: the increased risk of horribly bad decisions. These occur because a monoculture tends to form and such decisions are less likely in the painfully slow framework of democracy where everyone is ’allowed’ to voice their concerns (see: Parks and Rec).
Putin’s incredibly poor decision completely negates (and then some) the gains made over the past many years.
“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen” – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
Stop responding to comments like this. Like do you actually still believe they care about epistemology? Lol. Ignore the casualties of information war instead.
All of the statements in the early paragraphs are factual to my knowledge, and the last section about Putin's next steps are clearly speculation, but evidence is provides to support the claims made.
Lastly, the author seems credible. This is his area of expertise and he's served as ambassador to a co-belligerent in this conflict.
It seems to me that Putin invasion is stepping on egg shells because, as they stated, they are only interested in military targets, and a quick surrender. Although the war propaganda is scaring everyone and making this objective more difficult
The Russian demand of a neutral Ukraine outside of NATO is not unreasonable
US/UK/EU leaders seem really interested in escalation doing everything they can to antagonize everyone against each other, they really don't care how much regular people suffer as long as Russia is "punished"
Russia has no interest or capability of taking Ukraine or the EU. Say no to war
>The Russian demand of a neutral Ukraine outside of NATO is not unreasonable.
Ukraine is not Russia's vassal. The ones who get to decide what alliances Ukraine is part of are the Ukrainians. Any "demand" on that question on the part of another nation is unreasonable on its face.
But is understandable how NATO troops and ballistic missiles at their doorstep could be a worry for them. Same as USA would not accept if Canada and Mexico joined some kind of Russian defence union, as we still remember from the 'Cuban missile crises'
And we also still remember US/UK/EU... invaded and bombed Iraq, Libya and Syria and demanded their leaders to step down. And specially in Syria all US made polls indicated that the population was happy with their leader. All those countries population live in worse conditions today
And Ukraine is also in a civil war since 2014
So I would prefer that there was no invasions anywhere, and Ukraine had said no to NATO. But weighting everything I say I am not interested in a world war 3
Well, a "civil war" inspired, organized, and supported by "peace-loving" neighboring country, which now tries to "peacefully" topple democratic government just to finish up the job.
I think you might mean “understandable” when you’re saying “not unreasonable”. Putin/Russia wanting a buffer state between them and nato makes sense, but forcing those people to be a buffer state without their consent isn’t reasonable.
For instance, they could have achieved an alliance with Ukraine by offering a better deal than Nato, but they decided to take control via warfare
I am going to call BS on NATO's threat to Russia. How many wars/conflicts has Russia engaged in without NATO interference? It is time to move on. If Russia doesn't plan to invade NATO territory, the most most NATO will do is criticize actions, not put warheads on foreheads. If anything, this is Putin creating a self fulfilling prophecy. Invade non-NATO members will make non-NATO members want to join NATO. Putin's response is equivalent to screwing for virginity. If Russia refuses to invade NATO territory, then NATO is doing its job. If any country refuses to invade NATO territory because of NATO's strength, NATO is accomplishing its goal.
Russian-Georgia War, Donbas/Donetsk, Chechnya, and the most NATO has done is member states providing arms to Ukraine and words of distaste.
Those Russian invasions happened after NATO officially invited those countries to join, so it is not self fulfilling
Those countries are right at Russia's border, US other NATO members invading countries thousands of miles away
NATO members are by far the biggest aggressors in the world, always in and out of countries, claiming to spread "freedom". The population in all the countries, they intervene, live in worse conditions today. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Kenya, Afghanistan, Uganda, Ethiopia...
> The Russian demand of a neutral Ukraine outside of NATO is not unreasonable
Talk of Ukraine joining NATO or the EU was significantly influenced by Russia's invasion of Crimea. Russia was not demanding neutrality, it is demanding Ukraine be a vassal state under the threat of .. making it a vassal by force.
> Russia has no interest or capability of taking Ukraine or the EU. Say no to war
They literally invaded Ukraine, and are deliberately using illegal munitions on civilian targets.
Also there are video recording of cluster munition exploding in residential areas in kharkiv and empty uragan sized rockets with cassets for munition stuck in ground near by.
Kyiv TV Tower was just hit today. Feel free to find the footage, its all over the place, everyone recorded it.
Is not a TV-station a civilian target? Or do you think that's a valid military target?
------
Is UK President Zelenskyy a "valid military target" ? He's a civilian, and assassination attempts on civilian leadership is frowned upon.
------------
Its clear that Russia has begun to attack the _civilians_ of Ukraine. Hell, Russia may have been attacking civilians on Day 1, but now we have incredible video evidence of these attacks just a few days in.
Anyone claiming that Russia is "only targeting military" ignores the hospitals, neighborhoods, TV-stations, and leadership buildings that have been blown up by the Russians. This isn't just a one-off error, this is going on across Ukraine in general, wherever the Russian military is located.
-----
A major Kharkiv government building was just blown up too.
There wasn't any military there. That was a civilian target.
Anyone calling these attacks "valid military targets" is clearly tied into Russian propaganda. Maybe they aren't aware of it and are just copy/pasting their "trusted news sources", but now is the time to wake up and realize that they're being mislead by the Russian government.
Its utterly simple to prove that civilians are dying here. We got videos of it after all, we're in the smartphone age.
They repeatedly call the Russian invasion of Crimea a civil war, they claim that Russia has a right to further invade the rest of Ukraine due to Ukraine attempt to resist an invasion, they have been repeatedly documented deliberately targeting civilian structures (here's a hint: civilian housing in cities, childr cancer hospitals, etc are not military targets).
They also repeatedly (in the face of direct evidence) claim that Russia "doesn't want a war", just total capitulation and surrender of Ukraine.
At best they're a useful patsy, at worst this is their job.
This part o the discussion is not on facts but opinions. You seem to allow guilhas to express highly arguable opinions but at the same time don't allow a (no less justified) opinion about guilhas.
I then immediately point out downside: the increased risk of horribly bad decisions. These occur because a monoculture tends to form and such decisions are less likely in the painfully slow framework of democracy where everyone is ’allowed’ to voice their concerns (see: Parks and Rec).
Putin’s incredibly poor decision completely negates (and then some) the gains made over the past many years.
“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen” – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.